The applicants, Ukrainian nationals, mother and son, applied for temporary protection at the beginning of August 2022 at the Regional Assistance Center for Help to Ukraine) in Pilsen and their request was rejected. They reapplied at the end of August, and their application was refused and not processed by the police. They appealed against and were assisted before the Regional Court of Pilsen by a legal counsel from the Organisation for Refugees and a power of attorney was submitted.
The applicants submitted an appeal before the Regional Court in Pilsen to determine that the Ministry of the Interior's procedure in the case was unlawful. The assistant judge issued a decision stating that they can not admit the representation of by an NGO because matters of temporary protection do not fall under Article 35(5) of the Civil Code as they are not matters of international protection. The applicants filed objections against the assistant's resolution, however, the regional court did not allow the objections. The applicants further challenged the issue of legal assistance in a cassation appeal.
The Supreme Administrative Court allowed the appeal and clarified the interpretation of Article 35 (5) of the Civil Code in line with the Administrative Court proceedings act. First, the Supreme Administrative Court clarified that legal entities provided under Article 35(5) of the Civil Code (lawyers and NGOs) can also assist/represent foreigners in proceedings related to inaction or intervention lawsuits, if the lawsuit falls under the areas listed in Article 35(5) of the Civil Code.
Second, the court clarified the interpretation of the matter of international protection according to Article 35(5) of the Civil Code and the concept of temporary protection. It noted that the regional court tried to establish the difference between temporary protection and international protection under the Asylum Act, primarily on the basis of the different names and different legal regulations of the two institutes in Czech law. The Supreme Administrative Court made a thorough analysis of the EU acquis with regards to international protection and temporary protection and stated that asylum, subsidiary and temporary protection are therefore substantially more intertwined than their definitions and formal separation in secondary law (and possibly their national implementation).
The Supreme Administrative Court concluded that the concept ‘matter of international protection’ , as provided in Article 35 (5) of the Civil Code must be interpreted as including temporary protection.